On 17/12/2011 20:38, Barry Leiba wrote:
As you have seen by now, the IETF has received 2 IPR disclosures, one
regarding draft-ietf-sieve-convert and the other involving
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
...
Both of these drafts are already approved and in the RFC Editor queue. Right
now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for the moment
until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR disclosures just as
we would for any already published RFC (that is, we can simply say that it
is out of our hands). However, since publication has not occurred, we can
ask the RFC Editor to return the documents to the WG for further review,
I am, of course, not a lawyer, but as I read the terms, they don't
affect prospective implementations, and you need no license at all as
long as you don't want to assert your own patents back. That's not to
say that this isn't annoying; it is, and I wish it hadn't happened.
It's just that I don't see it affecting any implementations of the
standard, which is what's most important here.
I'll also add that Huawei now has not just policies, but also active
procedures in place to do our best to make this not happen in future.
Our IETF participants are frequently reminded about the IETF IPR
policies, and there are people responsible for tracking things and
ensuring compliance.
In this case, I think that publishing these documents is the right
thing to do. I think a working-group review is sufficient, and unless
WG participants particularly think we need to reach out to the
community at large for confirmation, we should just release the RFC Ed
hold on them after this consultation with the WG.
I'll add that the working group and the ADs need to have participants
speak up and say whether you think that's acceptable or not. Silence
is not sufficient in this case. Please tell us how you would like
this handled.
I think we need at least WGLC. I think our responsible AD needs to
decide whether to do IETF LC or not (I have no strong preference either
way).
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve